This is what Peter King says the ABC should do. They "should allow discourse from both sides of any issue that is in the public domain and of interest."
 
Speaking of Q&A, this year on 18th February Q&A ran a discussion which lasted perhaps 15 minutes, a good percentage of the entire hour, on the subject of creationism and creation being taught in schools. Yet they did so without asking a creationist to be present on the panel. (?!?) This is the ABC version of ‘balance’.
 
The main guest that night, Prof Laurence Krauss, an atheist physicist and cosmologist, spouted his naturalistic views on the the origins of the universe and mankind. Creationism as a viewpoint was ridiculed and abused. But in their version of 'balance', the ABC couldn’t bring themselves to ask a creationist in to the discussion and hear their view, the view from the other side.
 
What’s wrong with this? Well, I would think it pretty obvious. But I’m probably going to have to explain to Peter King. I shouldn't have to explain it to him because he explains it himself in his statement above, but yet I probably will have to.

If you write a letter of complaint to the ABC, if you ask why wasn't a creationist present when the topic of discussion was creationism, you'll get a one sentence dismissal explaining that, of course we're balanced, we're the ABC. "We said what was so good about our side, then we said how bad is the other side." - the ABC version of balance.

If you write to complain to the media authority, you'll get a Peter King type ABC supporter who closes ranks behind the ABC. He'll give them all benefit of doubt. The ABC can continue unfettered abusing people, creationists, Bible believers, or whomever it is they don't like.

The ABC is answerable to nobody.

It's time for them to go. They're beyond reform.

The national broadcasters publish their broad formal editorial standards, but they have informal policies too and they are not published or discussed. Why not on both counts?

I think you may have answered your own question, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Creationism as a viewpoint was ridiculed and abused. But in their version of 'balance', the ABC couldn’t bring themselves to ask a creationist in to the discussion and hear their view, the view from the other side. What’s wrong with this? Well, I would think it pretty obvious. But I’m probably going to have to explain to Peter King. I shouldn't have to explain it to him because he explains it himself in his statement above, but yet I probably will have to.<<

The statement in question was:

"[They] should allow discourse from both sides of any issue that is in the public domain and of interest."

In what way is Creationism of interest?

Sure, to a tiny fringe group of dedicated folk it is a critical component of their lives. You would not expect (or perhaps you would - there's a thought) Q&A to avoid mentioning UFOs, or alien abductions, or Roswell humanoids, unless the panel contained a ufologist, a conspiracy theorist and a host of "Paranormal TV".

I am aware that creationism is an important project of yours, Dan S de Merengue. But you need to be a little more realistic about its place in the wider world. In this instance, Creationism was discussed in relation to education, which is a controversial subject. Creationism itself, however, is not a topic for rational real-world debate.

It might get a run on ACA or Today Tonight, though, if you found a sufficiently tacky angle. Could be worth a shot.

Pericles,
You ask, 'In what way is Creationism of interest?'

I'll explain, it's something everyone seems to have some kind of opinion on, including you, including me, including the ABC, including Q&A, and including the panelists they invited to speak about it. It's a public issue. I didn't ask the ABC to do a feature on it. I just ask the ABC to do its job properly, which as Peter King explains, is to "allow discourse from both sides of any issue that is in the public domain and of interest." 

On the 18th of February, the ABC failed in that they seemingly deliberately didn't invite participation from one side of the debate. (But such failure has no consequences, as the ABC is answerable to no one, time and again.)

The ABC is incapable of doing its job properly. I await Peter King, or any other rational person to come and try and explain why. 

(If I need to spell it out, the job of the ABC is not to take sides on a controversial issue, but to present all principal viewpoints in a balanced manner.)

DSM

Where in hell would the ABC get a creationist? They presumably don't advertise or appear in Yellow Pages. As mentioned before "public intetest"".is the missing element

I think you will find ctedibilty is a prerequisite

Have another think about it, Dan S de Merengue.

>>Pericles, You ask, 'In what way is Creationism of interest?' I'll explain, it's something everyone seems to have some kind of opinion on, including you, including me, including the ABC, including Q&A, and including the panelists they invited to speak about it.<<

Merely "having an opinion" on the topic doesn't qualify. The issue being debated was not creationism itself (sorry, I'm fed up with giving it a capital letter) but the ridiculous concept of teaching it in schools.

We don't "teach" kids about UFOs, even though the subject may get some airplay when an appropriate opportunity arises. We don't "teach" kids about alien abductions, except when the topic crops up in another context. We don't "teach" kids about paranormal apparitions in haunted houses either, even though they may watch Ghosthunters on TV. We simply explain to them that some elements of society find it more comforting to believe in ghosts.

Whether it is acceptable to you personally or not, society in general has decided that teaching children from a relatively scientific perspective carries a great deal more, and lasting, credibility than filling their heads with magic and mythology.

And this is where you are absolutely and categorically wrong:

>>It's a public issue.<<

Creationism is not a public issue. It is a belief system held by a tiny proportion of the world's population, and carries no weight whatsoever in terms of its impact on society. It is very much a private issue, in fact. Creationsism, UFOs, ghosthunting, alien abductions are all privately-held beliefs. Which are all quite permissible in our society - no-one is going to slap you in jail for holding them - but they are not topics for school curricula.

>>If I need to spell it out, the job of the ABC is not to take sides on a controversial issue<<

It is only controversial to you. To most of us, it is about as "controversial" as believing that houses are haunted by the spirits of our ancestors.

And that if we use a special camera, we can see them.